2015-07-20
Andrew Bartlett
The latest controversy involving travel spending, this time by Parliamentary Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, is a clear reminder that the rules around travel and other entitlements for Parliamentarians need to be further clarified and tightened.
This is particularly necessary for entitlements that are open ended — that is, where there is no set limit for what can be spent each year. The need for reform is greater still for expenditure by ministers and presiding officers (such as the Speaker), where entitlements are more likely to be open ended, both in how much can be spent and what it can be spent on.
Most people would see such reform as necessary to curtail rorting. It may also help reduce overall expenditure, although how much would depend on the specifics of such reform. But in truth, proper reform would also make the lives of politicians — or at least those that don't set out to rort the system - much easier.
During my time in the Senate, the Australian Democrats were successful in having the Auditor-General conduct a comprehensive review of entitlements. As expected, it found huge problems. In many cases it was difficult to even determine whether expenditure was within entitlements or not. This was due to poor definitions of what parliamentarians were able to do and what they weren't, as well as less than adequate reporting requirements.
Not all of the recommendations of that report from the Auditor-General were fully adopted, but many were. This led to some improvement in definitions of what particular entitlements could be used for, as well as more expenditure caps being put in place. Further changes led to some expenditure caps being put on certain types of entitlements. Most importantly, it led to much better reporting on the use of entitlements, both in the detail and in what was made publicly available. This made it much easier for spending on items such as Ms Bishop's helicopter flight — and her spending on overseas travel — to be more readily known to the public.
Since that Auditor-General's report, there have been further reviews of entitlements. It is important to remember and acknowledge these — both as a reminder that improvements have been made, and that it is quite possible to make further changes if the political will is there. And more reform is clearly needed.
Public cynicism towards politicians is understandable, and the assumption is widespread that most of them are focussed on maximising what they can get out of entitlements. But the problem is not so much deliberate misuse of entitlements, but unclear and overly broad definitions of what those entitlements can be used for. The reason why politicians who find themselves in hot water, such as Ms Bishop, can readily say that they have acted "within entitlements" is because the rules around those entitlements are in many circumstances just too vague or too open ended.
In the case of travel, this can make it difficult for politicians to know for sure whether or not travel is within entitlement or not. When I was in Parliament, I would sometimes seek advice on this, and would usually be told that I had to make this judgement myself. The extra — unofficial — advice that often accompanied it was to not do anything I wouldn't want to see on the front page of the paper.
While there is a lot of wisdom in that, it really doesn't suffice when it comes to determining what is and isn't allowed. Pretty much any expenditure by politicians can be presented in a negative light, and many people would be quite happy if politicians' ability to have their travel costs funded was seriously curtailed. And while obviously we should expect honesty from our politicians as a matter of course, it is still not satisfactory to expect or allow them to do their own interpreting of the rules around use of entitlements.
Politicians are repeatedly told that entitlements have to be used on business related to their work as parliamentarians, but not for anything to do with party political business. In some cases, this dividing line is clear. Travel that is related only to an event that is solely to raise money for a political party would be one example. But in other cases, the dividing line is not so clear. One example would be a party event focused on policy that relates to issues the politician is working on in Parliament.
If we want to get worthwhile reform in transparency and use of parliamentarians' entitlements, we need to do more than revel in political scandal and target individuals. It is well past time to have another detailed examination of how travel and other entitlements are used in practice.
Andrew Bartlett is a former Senator and former Convenor of the Queensland Greens. This article originally appeared in the ABC's The Drum.